Hi Karin,

Yes, the physician should have picked up that something was going on, and that his patient was in danger....

when the patient said, "What do you think about Arsenicum?"

That would have been the time to intervene.

Unfortunately, I DO think the article is biased against homeopathy, because it sets out to warn homeopaths about what we already know, and what we are already taught to know:

*arsenicum 6X, a rarely prescribed potency (I don't know anyone who uses the x potencies except in very rare cases, such as when antidoting a higher potency of the same remedy) still contains the material substance

*never consult or take a case without seeing the patient in person, and never prescribe for a named pathology (in this case, diarrhea!).

*do not allow the patient to self-medicate. Do not self-medicate. Advocate against self-medication (this is a universal in all medicine, not just in homeopathy!)

*never repeat a remedy indefinitely. I don't know any homeopaths--and definitely not classical ones--who would counsel a patient to take 3 daily doses of arsenicum 6x every day for 3 months!

Aside from citing this case, the other case mentioned involves the use of a combination remedy--again prescribed allopathically.

Now, I do not believe that the generalisation about homeopathic remedies is widely held anywhere. Why? Because the interest in homeopathy and the growth of its popularity, world wide, proves this generalisation to be false. Despite so many well-funded, heavily concerted efforts to eradicate homeopathy and its practice everywhere, it is flourishing.

However, when you want the world to believe a lie, you keep printing/publishing/repeating that lie; eventually everyone will believe it is true. Everyday, we see polypharmacy companies promoting cures as "homeopathy" which have nothing at all to do with homeopathy. At least once a week, I read an article about how some MD decided to give out combination remedies or abuse some form of herbal medicine--or just prescribe allopathic treatments and botch those up--and see that he is described--actually denounced--as a "Homeopath" in the article.

This article, in my opinion, attempts to do the same thing. If it doesn't attempt to do it, it achieves the same end.

Why write an article telling homeopaths what we already know to be true (and learn in like, lesson #2 of our training?), and use an example of a non-homeopathic practitioner allowing a patient to self-medicate as a cautionary tale? Why put the emphasis on "repeat dosing of a remedy", when what is really illustrated here is how not being trained as a homeopath, not taking a full case, not prescribing homeopathically, and not following up resulted in a death? In short, how the patient's lack of access to a homeopath killed her?

For heaven's sake, I know that poisonous substances kill.

I know that homeopathic remedies, if they are taken long term, with no supervision, cause irreparable harm.

Why, when so many patients die of prescription drug use and over the counter drug use, and when we know MDs with no training in homeopathy are allowed to practice anything they want with impunity...why do homeopaths need to be slapped on the nose with newspaper?

As for the writers of the article being homeopaths--I doubt it strongly. That remark about a "database" betrayed them.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine